Characteristics of IDP life cycle

In this subsection, we will look into the characteristics of the international development project life cycle. This research adopts a life cycle model for at least two reasons. First, the life cycle approach to project management is widely used in international development sector by both bilateral donor agencies, like CIDA, and multilateral aid organizations, like the World Bank.

Secondly, the life-cycle approach makes it easier to talk about projects. By dividing them into phases, it spiits management processes into smaller, more manageable units of analysis.

It is difficuit to attribute the concept of project life cycle to one author since this concept has gradually evolved overtime (Bonnal, Goure, & Lacoste, 2002). "Ail project life cycles consist of a sequence of stages and activities, from origin to completion" (Stewart & Fortune, 1995, p.279).

The sequential phases are generaily differentiated by the technical work being carried out, the key actors invoived, the deliverables to be generated and the ways these are controlled and approved (Khang & Moe, 2008). Transition from one phase of a project to another involves approval gates (Besner & Hobbs, 2006), in other words, "some form of technical transfer or handoff" (PMBOK Guide, 2004, p.20). Deliverables are reviewed for "completeness and accuracy" and approved before the next phase starts (when phases are sequential). The practice of "managing by phase occupied a prominent position in the project management literature and practice for a very long time" (Besner & Hobbs, 2006, p. 39). Dividing projects into phases provides better management control and assures appropriate links with ongoing operations of an organization (PMBOK Guide, 2004). 1-Iowever, the PMBOK does not recognize management-by-phase as an important project management process (Besner & Hobbs, 2006). The PMBOK introduces a concept of

process groups: initiating, planning, executing, and closing process groups and an idea that processes from these groups repeat during each phase. Therefore, those process groups have names and descriptions very similar to those used to identify project phases (Besner & Hobbs, 2006). "It is, therefore, flot aiways easy to maintain the distinction between the phase and the process group" (Besner & Hobbs, 2006, p. 39) although PMBOK stresses that the phases of a project life cycle are not the same as process groups (PMBOK Guide, 2004).

There is "no single best way to define an ideal project life cycle" (PMBOK Guide, 2004, p.20).

Some organizations have standardized project life cycle, applicable to all projects, while others allow project management team to choose the most appropriate cycle for their project (PMBOK Guide, 2004). Pinto and Sievin (1988) were employing a four-phase life cycle with:

conceptualization, planning, execution and termination. According to Muriithi and Crawford (2003), the most common life cycle model in literature proposes four phases: initiation and concept, design and development, implementation and commissioning and hand-over. However, Ahsan and Gunawan (2010) estabhished that most international development projects have five stages in the life cycle, which are: identification, preparation, appraisal and approval, implementation and evaluation.

In the following paragraph, the author will take a look at the World Bank's project life cycle ¹³ due to the World Bank experience and leading role in implementing development aid projects around the world. The traditional World Bank life cycle so "lucidly articulated by Warren Baum in the December 1978 issue of Finance & Development" (Picciotto & Weaving, 1994, p.42)

13 Referring to the new World Bank project life cycle Picciotto and Weaving (1994) used the term learning cycle, emphasizing experimentation, organizational learning and risk assessment. The new World Bank life cycle centers on the borrower and the beneficiary (Picciotto & Weaving, 1994).

Mé

consisted of six standardized sequential steps of identification, preparation, appraisal, negotiations, implementation and supervision and ex-post evaluation (Baum, 1970, 1978). The traditional cycle, grounded in engineering tradition has been "particularly well suited to infrastructure development in stable economies with well-established institutions and predictable govemment policies" (Picciotto & Weaving, 1994, p.42) but it proved maladapted to

"participatory, risky and volatile framework" (Picciotto & Weaving, 1994, p.42) of development aid in the 90s. The new context forced the World Bank to start testing new approaches to processing projects (Picciotto & Weaving, 1994). The current World Bank project cycle stiil counts six phases, although with two new phases added, notably: country assistance strategy and implementation and completion, others were regrouped and merged to give: 1) Country Assistance Strategy; 2) identification; 3) preparation; appraisal and board approval; 4) implementation and supervision; 5) implementation and completion and 6) evaluation.

During the first phase of the project life cycle, the World Bank works with the borrowing country' s government and beneficiaries to develop the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) that lays down a country's development priorities and the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) being the World Bank's plan for program assistance linked to the country's identified needs (WB, 2009). These two documents symbolize the shift in WB's development aid paradigm from a traditional, grounded in engineering, to a more social and client-oriented.

b

CIDA does flot have a generic project life cycle model. Therefore, there are différent project life cycles for each CIDA business delivery model: core funding, responsive programming and directive programming' 5 (CIDA Business Process RoadMap, 2010). In core funding and responsive programming there are seven generic phases which exist in both delivery models 1) initiation; 2) planning; 3) approval; 4) operationalization; 5) implementation; 6) monitoring and control and 7) closure. Initiation, planning, approval, operationalization, implementation and closure phases are treated as discrete processes and monitoring and control processes apply to each phase and span ail steps in the life cycle (CIDA Business Process RoadMap, 2010). In case

14 Original World Bank address for this figure: http://go.worldbank.org/0J7YYNVEDQ; more interactive version of the WB project cycle now available w: http://go.worldbank.org/GI967K75DO

15 Cote Funding - used when CIDA chooses to support organizations, institutions or recipient countries involved in development initiatives that are expected to yield developmental resuits reflecting CIDA goals and objectives;

Responsive Programming - used when CIDA agrees to support development initiatives conceived by a proponent which are consistent with the goals and objectives of CIDAs programs;

Directive Programming - used when CIDA takes the lead in designing development initiatives. These initiatives may eventually be implemented by CIDA or through another organization under CIDAs supervision. (Source: CIDA Business Process RoadMap, 2010, p.43)

48

of directive programming, in which CIDA takes a lead in planning and implementing projects, processes changed in April 2010 and the new Directive Project Development Process (DPDP) user guide now describes new phases of the project development process, which are: 1) initiation;

2) work planning; 3) design; 4) selection and agreements, which are followed by: 5) implementation and 6) closure.

So what are the similarities between the World Bank and CIDA project life cycles? At the first glance, the World Bank and CIDA life cycles vary significantly. World Bank is a lending agency and CIDA is a donor country agency that has three différent business delivery models.

Nevertheless, for both the World Bank and CIDA, the planning and evaluation project phases seem to be of the utmost importance.

Summary statement on what we have learned in section one about the différences between the standard and international development projects: International development projects differ from standard projects in ternis of their "soft" objectives and intangible deliverables, the complexity of the environment in which they are implemented, number of stakeholders involved and high levels of bureaucracy. Also, international development projects' success is flot so dependent on the

"triple constraint" of time, money and scope.

2.2. Overview of RBM experience in the public sector with focus on international development